In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court recently permitted the dismissal of members from the national labor boards for federal employees without needing to cite any reasons. The decision addresses the cases of Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, who were both removed as they navigate the legal system.
According to Congress, members of these boards can only be released due to ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office’, a factor that some lower courts deemed to make the terminations likely unlawful. However, in this decision, the Supreme Court majority cited an earlier ruling, asserting that the President holds the power to remove certain federal officials free-willed, despite any protective legislation from Congress.
Interestingly, the justices of the majority view argued that these board members appear to exercise ‘significant executive authority’. This, they believe, strengthens the case that the respective presidents should inherently have the right to terminate their services without provided reasons, amidst ongoing legal proceedings.
Indeed, the order issued by the Supreme Court made clear their judgment that the Government is highly likely to demonstrate that the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board both utilize considerable executive power. Thus, validating the President’s ability to dismiss members of these boards without justifiable cause.
Nevertheless, the Court also left the door open to the possibility that federal law securing Wilcox and Harris from removal may still uphold constitutionality, a determination that would only occur once the cases reach completion.
In a surprising twist, the Supreme Court order made an analogy between the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. They suggested that while these boards may seem similar, they are inherently different – with Federal Reserve board members potentially enjoying greater firing protections.
Championing the exceptional structure and quasi-private entity status of the Federal Reserve, the Court’s order honored its unique lineage in the distinctive historical tradition of the United States’ early national banks.
The Trump administration, demonstrating its commitment to maintain the power and autonomy of the presidency, has constantly argued that a president should retain the right to terminate any federal service of official, disregarding any protective measures Congress may put in place.
This perspective was put into practice when Wilcox and Harris were let go from their positions, without the necessity of providing a reason. Following their departure, the required quorum for the five-member board to carry out its functions ceased to exist, leading to lawsuits from both dismissed members.
The Trump administration’s bold move was backed by lower court decrees in both cases, concluding that the federal law safeguarding these board members from expulsion was constitutionally sound based on the precedent set by the 1935 Supreme Court decision of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The Trump administration, however, presents a strong case for overturning the 1935 decision, standing by their principle of maintaining the President’s power to remove federal officials. The unstable employment journey of Wilcox and Harris, with multiple reinstatements and firings, stands testament to the complexity of the situation.
The tussle revolving around their employment status involved reinstatement by district courts, termination approved by a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges, and reinstatement once again by the full D.C. Circuit. In a courageous move, the Trump administration took the matter to the Supreme Court via an emergency application.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority released an unsigned emergency order, leaving some doubt about whether all six members had joined the order. The President’s strategic act and subsequent Supreme Court support signify a bold move rebuffing the opinion of detractors.
In disagreement with this majority perspective, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced concern that the majority had implicitly negated a 90-year-old precedent in an emergency setting. They felt that the President had acted contrary to existing regulations, with optimism that the court would accede.
Despite this dissent from some justices, the Supreme Court ruling stands in favor of the Trump administration. The vision of Congress, which hoped for bipartisan decision-making by a group of knowledgeable officials immune from baseless removal, was scrutinized amid the recognition of the President’s executive power.
Some critics might argue that the decision resulted in bespoke legal exceptions and challenged long-term public good approaches. However, the majority decision of the Supreme Court stands testament to the extensive power vested in the President of the United States.
The post Supreme Court Backs Trump’s Federal Board Termination Rights appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
